Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany - Joanna Gubman, Michael Pahle, Karoline Steinbacher & Dallas Burtraw
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Joanna Gubman, Michael Pahle,
Karoline Steinbacher & Dallas Burtraw
Transportation Electrification Policy
in California and Germany
Comparison and Implications for German Electric Vehicle Policy
December 2016
Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
2
Contents
Executive summary 3
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Electric Vehicle Market Development 5
2. Technology Innovation System Framework 8
3. Demographic, Environmental, and Policy Context 10
4. Transportation Electrification Stakeholders 13
5. Regulation and Policies 17
5.1 Regulatory Frameworks 17
5.2 Broad goals, targets, caps, or taxes focused on decarbonization and air quality 20
5.3 Vehicle-focused policies 22
5.4 Land use, building, and charging infrastructure policies 25
5.5 Electricity market and infrastructure regulation and planning 25
5.6 Civic engagement and equity initiatives 29
5.7 Overview of policy landscapes 30
6. Observations, Recommendations and Open Questions 32
Authors Acknowledgements
Joanna Gubman, The authors are grateful for comments by Florian
Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung/Foundation Fellow, Hacker, Henry Lee, Klaus Dieter Maubach, David
on leave from the California Public Utilities Commis- McCollum, Noel Crisostomo and Philipp Offergeld.
sion (CPUC),
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) This report was written in the context of the AHEAD
project (see back cover). Funded by:
Michael Pahle,
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK),
Corresponding author: michael.pahle@pik-potsdam.de
Karoline Steinbacher,
Associate, Environment and Natural Resources Joanna Gubman’s contribution was supported by
Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation.
Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Dallas Burtraw,
Resources for the Future (RFF)Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
Executive summary 3
The future is electric and California and Germany are 3. and management of the interactive effects
currently behind the wheel. After spending years as occurring along with other trends such as
more of a conception than a reality, electric vehicles mode-switching, car-sharing, autonomous
(EVs) are becoming a global trend bound to grow vehicles, and increased penetration of variable
beyond niche demand. California and Germany stand renewable energy resources.
out as two key markets for both the development
and purchase of EVs, particularly because of their A second overarching finding is that several elements
visions or strategies for transportation summarized stand out from California’s richer and more compre-
under the concepts “Verkehrswende” (transportation hensive policy approach for potential learning and
transition) and “transportation electrification” respec- transfer to Germany, including:
tively. Therefore, this report compares the California 1. centralized coordination of all public-sector
and Germany EV markets and regulatory frameworks, activities through a concrete action plan and
taking stock of the current state and upcoming op- knowledge sharing through a single government
portunities and challenges analyzed through the lens body,
of the technology innovation system (TIS) frame- 2. greater policy focus on the need and preferences
work. The report employs a comparative methodo of consumers combined with wide availability of
logy based on a review of the literature, media, and related data,
online material and 16 semi-structured expert inter- 3. explicit consideration of equity and the inclusion
views conducted in summer 2016 with policy ana- of disadvantaged communities,
lysts and stakeholders (industry and public sector) in 4. and the use of a broad portfolio of market based
Germany. It aims to inform policy makers and stake- instruments targeting fuels, manufacturers and
holders in one jurisdiction about developments in the consumers alike.
other jurisdiction, and to identify best practices and
mutual lessons for future policies and other jurisdic- None of these elements is a simple recipe for suc-
tions. Given that California is at a more advanced cess or can be seen as one-size-fits-all solution.
stage, this work particularly addresses German poli- Rather, they provide inspiration and help to refine the
cy makers and stakeholders, who may find insights major questions that German policymakers and other
from California PEV policies and market develop- stakeholders should seriously consider when making
ments valuable. choices as to how to shape the future of electric ve-
hicles and more broadly also the transportation sector.
A first overarching finding is that regardless of the
structural differences, Germany and California face
common challenges. These include:
1. development of new policies and regulatory
frameworks to promote expansion in niches
capable of inducing disruptive innovation as a
next step and the broader market in the long-
term, including expanding public charging infra-
structure,
2. vehicle-grid integration (VGI) including the design
of electricity rates for efficient charging as well
as scheduling EV charging to complement grid
operation, the use of EVs for demand side ser-
vices (storage), and accompanying operation and
expansion of the grid as necessary,Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
4
1. Introduction
As automakers and policymakers make almost daily these policies have had only a m inor impact on vehicle
major announcements concerning the EV sector, it is adoption. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged –
clear that plug-in electric vehicles (PEV), and espe- as interviews carried out for the purpose of this study
cially battery electric vehicles (BEV), are becoming a confirm (see below) – that PEVs are coming, if not
global trend. 1 California and Germany stand out as yet truly at a tipping point in Germany.
two key markets for the development and purchase
of PEVs. This report compares industry best practic- Against this background, we assess recent develop-
es and potential future policies. ments in California and Germany. We target stake-
holders in both California and Germany that are ex-
California has evolved into a leading market for ploring what needs to be done to push PEV markets
transportation electrification, driven by its air quality into a more self-sustaining expansion. Our focus is
concerns, strong environmental ethic, high depen- thus on policy lessons and recommendations, in light
dence on cars and trucks, need to integrate renew- of both Californian and German experiences to date.
ables into a grid that was originally designed for dis- Given that California is at a more advanced stage of
patchable fossil fuel generation, and culture and PEV adoption, we believe that German stakeholders
economy focused on technical innovation. Approxi- in particular may benefit from this presentation of
mately 250,000 electric vehicles are on California California PEV policies and market developments. At
roads today2, and the state has plans and programs the same time, it is clear that policies cannot be sim-
in place to reach its goal of 1.5 million electric vehi- ply transferred from one region to another – policies
cles by 2025. In contrast Germany, with its world- and feasible paths forward are highly dependent on
leading automotive industry and robust grid, appears the specific economies, political systems, regulatory
to have a more cautious culture, and faces other competencies, electricity systems, geographies, life-
pressing environmental concerns not directly related styles, and cultures of each region. Additionally, both
to transportation, such as reducing coal consump- regions are only at the beginning of the transforma-
tion. Perhaps as a result, Germany has taken a “wait tion of their transportation sectors.
and see” approach to transportation electrification,
at least until recently, despite also having a strong We employ a comparative methodology based on (1)
environmental ethic. Even though the country has a a review of the literature, media, and online material
goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2020, with a and (2) 16 semi-structured expert interviews con-
mere 57,000 PEVs (of which 39,000 are BEV) on the ducted in summer 2016 with policy analysts and
road today,3 it is highly unlikely that this goal will be stakeholders (industry and public sector) in Germa-
met. Driven by a need to reduce greenhouse gas ny, as well as three expert interviews conducted in
(GHG) emissions in the transportation sector, where Japan, to provide a broader perspective. Our analysis
emissions are still above 1990 levels, the federal utilizes the technology innovation system (TIS)
government has recently begun pursuing more am framework borrowed from the sociotechnical change
bitious transportation electrification policies, such as literature4 introduced in Section 2, which allows us to
vehicle purchase rebates (Umweltbonus). So far, highlight similarities and differences regarding policy
1 A Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) is a general term for any car that runs at least partially on battery power and is recharged from the
electricity grid. There are two different types of PEVs: pure battery electric vehicles (BEV), which run completely on electricity
stored in batteries and have an electric motor rather than a gasoline engine, and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV), which combine two
propulsion modes in one vehicle – an electric motor that is battery powered and can be plugged in and recharged, and a gasoline
engine that can be refueled with gasoline. (Source: https://driveclean.arb.ca.gov/pev/Plug-in_Electric_Vehicles/PEV_Types.php).
2 Source: Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative, http://www.pevcollaborative.org/sites/all/themes/pev/files/161110_PEVC_
PEV_250KSales_Milestone_Release%5B4%5D.pdf
3 Source: Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (KBA), http://www.kba.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/pm_08_16_bestand_01_16_
pdf.pdf
4 Hekkert, M.P., R.A.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and R.E.H.M. Smits. 2007. “Functions of Innovation Systems: A New Approach
for Analysing Technological Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4): 413–32.Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
5
innovations in the two regions, and to identify areas personal automobiles.5 In the same period, approxi-
for potential improvement. We apply the TIS frame- mately 122,000 BEVs and 110,000 PHEVs have been
work along three dimensions: policy context (Section sold in California, representing 1 % of all personal auto-
3), stakeholders (Section 4), and regulation & policies mobiles (excluding pickup trucks).6 In other words,
(Section 5). In the last section, we will make observa- California has roughly quadruple Germany’s cumu
tions and recommendations for the path forward for lative PEV sales, despite the fact that about half as
German policy making, as well as raise open ques- many cars are sold in California each year. On a per-
tions for further consideration. We begin with a short centage point basis, considering cumulative PEV sales
overview of market developments in California and relative to total personal automobile registrations,
Germany in the following section. California has seven times the sales of electric cars.
Annual sales data, shown in Figure 1 below, demon-
strate that while Germany’s PEV sales are increasing
1.1 Electric Vehicle Market Development relative to California’s, a significant gap remains.7
Plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) sales in California and Charging infrastructure penetration is also a key in-
Germany have primarily been in the light duty vehicle dicator of market development. As of August 2016,
segment (cars), though model availability and sales California had 10,280 public charging stations
are expanding into other vehicle types such as SUVs (charging outlets) located at 3,376 facilities, as well
and buses. In Germany, as of October 2016, around as 2,041 private charging stations located at 609 fa-
39,000 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and around cilities.8 Germany, meanwhile, as of June 2016 has
28,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) had 6,517 public charging stations at 2,859 facilities. Out
been registered since 2012, a combined 0.1% of all of thse stations, 230 offer DC (direct current) fast
Figure 1 | Cumulated light duty electric vehicle sales (CA) or registrations (DE) since 2012
(*data for 2016 only until October)7
250,000
200,000
150,000 DE - PHEV
CA - PHEV
DE - BEV
100,000
CA - BEV
50,000
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
5 Source: KBA, http://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Fahrzeuge/fahrzeuge_node.html. PHEV data were not collected until 2013 and
therefore the number of PHEVs in Germany excludes vehicles registered in 2012.
6 Source: ZEV Facts, http://www.zevfacts.com/sales-dashboard.html
7 Source: KBA and ZEV Facts (see previous footnotes)
8 Source: US DoE, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/stations_counts.htmlTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
6
charging; the respective number for California was studies have shown that the daily travel needs of
not provided in the used sources.9 Technically, fast over 85 % of US drivers can be met by charging ex-
charging capacity is defined as larger than 22 kW, isting BEVs only at night11, and that 87 % of US vehi-
which can be up to 200 kW or even 350 kW in the cle-day needs could be met by an e xisting, afford-
CCS (Combined Charging System) standard. Depend- able electric vehicle . At the same time, many
12
ing on battery size, e.g. 33 kWh for a BMW i3 and potential PEV drivers do not have access to over-
60 kWh for a Tesla Model S, charging times can be night charging, e.g. because they live in multifamily
reduced considerably. dwellings without dedicated parking. Moreover, most
PEV drivers do use public charging infrastructure at
While lack of charging infrastructure and range anxi- least on occasion, and the very existence of the in-
ety – the fear felt by drivers of electric vehicles that frastructure can help to ease range anxiety, even if it
they will run out of fuel and be left stranded – is a is not frequently used; individuals who are aware of
critical barrier to adoption, and was frequently brought charging stations have also been found to be more
up in interviews in Germany as the second most crit- willing to consider purchasing a PEV.13 As further dis-
ical barrier after cost, it is important to note that lack cussed in Section 5.5, the need to build up public in-
of infrastructure might be a less significant problem frastructure and determine who should pay for it are
than drivers expected. In fact, nearly 70 % of PEV important questions to be considered.14
drivers need out of home charging less than once per
month, if they have it available in the home.10 Other
Figure 2 | PEV model availability in California from Californian, German, and other manufacturers14
40 40
All manufacturers All manufacturers
35 35
German manufacturers German manufacturers
30 CA manufacturers 30
CA manufacturers
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BEV Model Year PHEV Model Year
9 Source: BDEW, https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/bdew-erhebung-elektromobilitaet-de
10 Source: INFRASTRUCTURE MARKETS, STAKEHOLDERS, AND NEEDS THROUGH 2025-2030, Michael Nicholas and Gil Tal, April
2016. http://steps.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/04-26-2016-Nicholas-Charging-Workshop-CEC-2016-Nicholas.pdf, page 5.
11 Saxena, Samveg, Jason MacDonald, and Scott Moura. 2015. “Charging Ahead on the Transition to Electric Vehicles with Standard
120V Wall Outlets.” Applied Energy 157 (November): 720–28. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.005.
12 Needell, Zachary A., James McNerney, Michael T. Chang, and Jessika E. Trancik. 2016. “Potential for Widespread Electrification of
Personal Vehicle Travel in the United States.” Nature Energy 1 (9): 16112. doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.112.
13 The role of infrastructure in PEV adoption, Gil Tal and Michael Nicholas April 2016. http://steps.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/04-
26-2016-Tal-STEPS-Workshop-4_26_16-V2.pdf, page 5; and Consumer Views on Plug-in Electric Vehicles – National Benchmark
Report, Mark Singer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), January 2016, page iii. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65279.pdf.
14 Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/Search_and_Explore/Technologies_and_Fuel_Types.php.
Variations are counted as distinct models.Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
7
Model availability is also a key element of market de-
velopment, as market niches can only adopt vehicles
if appropriate models are available. The availability of
models from Californian and German manufacturers
is an important indicator of stakeholder evolution in
the two regions and of the ability for regional manu-
facturers to benefit from PEV incentives. Trends in
model availability for passenger cars are shown in
Figure 2.
Beyond passenger PEVs, other types of electric
vehicles are emerging. E-bikes have been particularly
successful in Germany, where they now comprise
12.5 % of bicycle sales. As of early 2016, Germany
had 2.5 million e-bikes, with 535,000 sold in 2015
alone. Also a leader in e-bike manufacturing, Germa-
ny exported 140,000 e-bikes in 2015.15 In the last-
mile delivery sector, Germany’s DHL has entered the
market with its own PEV delivery vans, which it also
plans to sell externally.16 Other emerging vehicle
types include buses, trucks, and other medium and
heavy-duty vehicles.17 However, according to our in-
terviews, lack of diverse vehicle types in large-scale
production (even amongst passenger vehicles) con-
tinues to be a major market barrier in both regions.
And in Germany, to the extent that most vehicle
types are today available from foreign manufactur-
ers, support for PEVs would hardly be effective from
the perspective of national industrial policy. We re-
turn to this in Section 6.
15 Source: Zweirad-Industrie-Verband, Zahlen – Daten – Fakten zum Deutschen E-Bike-Markt 2015, March 2016.
http://www.ziv-zweirad.de/fileadmin/redakteure/Downloads/Marktdaten/PM_2016_08.03._E-Bike-Markt_2015.pdf
16 Source: http://www.dw.com/en/deutsche-post-dhl-makes-its-own-electric-delivery-vans/a-19332124
17 Source: Examples include BYD and Proterra electric buses, http://www.byd.com/na/ebus/ebus.htmland, http://www.proterra.com,
Orange EV terminal trucks, https://orangeev.com/, and more examples at http://www.energy.ca.gov/altfuels/2015-MISC-04/
documents/2015-12-02_presentations.phpTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
8
2. Technology Innovation System
Framework
Several frameworks have been developed in the liter- used to map activities within the TIS. Rather than
ature to analyze industry- and society-wide transi- constituting a linear sequence of steps, the func-
tions towards sustainability in different sectors. As tions are dynamically interlinked. In the later sec-
one of the most prominent of such approaches, the tions of this paper, we highlight how current, planned,
Technology Innovation System (TIS) framework18 , and proposed policies in California and Germany fit
drawn from the techno-economic transitions litera- into this framework (using identifiers such as “F1”,
ture, is particularly well suited to compare the emer- “F2”, etc. – or “-F1”, “-F2”, etc. to refer to barriers or
gence and diffusion of new technologies that have actions hindering innovation).19
the potential to profoundly transform a sector of
the economy. Other approaches such as transition Several previous studies have used TIS to assess the
management or socio-technical transitions theories development of electric vehicle markets. O ne study
are closely linked to TIS, but generally adopt a broad- applies the framework to seven countries, focusing
er perspective. The TIS framework maps important on functions F4 to F7.20 In an in-depth case study of
aspects of the innovation process into seven “func- the Norwegian market, it finds that policies guiding
tions”. As shown in Table 1 below, these functions are the formation of markets and the signaling effect of
Table 1 | Technology Innovation System (TIS) Functions
Function Description
F1 – Entrepreneurial activities Presence of new entrants or innovative incumbents who
diversify their strategies and are ready to engage in risky
experimentation with a new technology; contributes to
knowledge generation.
F2 – Knowledge development Learning and knowledge generation; can be reflected in
patents, projects or funds spent on research and development.
F3 – Knowledge diffusion through net- Knowledge generated meets broader networks of policymakers
works and other industry stakeholders; diffusion of knowledge may
promote increased standardization.
F4 – Guidance of the search Selection of specific technological paths to be pursued and in-
vested in; can be prompted by government action, stakeholder
expectations.
F5 – Market formation Creation of protective conditions or niches for nascent tech-
nologies to compete in incumbent markets.
F6 – Resource mobilization Making funds available for R&D, niche experiments and protec-
tive spaces to facilitate the uptake of specific technologies.
F7 – Legitimation19 Growing advocacy coalitions for specific technologies; creates
legitimacy/acceptance for specific technologies.
18 Hekkert, M.P., R.A.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and R.E.H.M. Smits. 2007. “Functions of Innovation Systems: A New Approach for
Analysing Technological Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4): 413–32. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002.
19 “Legitimation” as used here should not be confused with political legitimacy. A more descriptive term might be advocacy or political
support.
20 Veragis, Sydney et al. 2014. “Plug-In Electric Vehicles: A Case Study of Seven Markets “. UC Davis Research Report – UCD-ITS-
RR-14-17. Available at: https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.php?id=2369Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
9
goals set by the government contributed to the
emergence of a leading market for EVs, while others
factors such as lower temperatures and related re-
duced range were negative factors. Another study
applies a TIS framework to the deployment of EVs
elsewhere in Europe and finds market formation to
be a missing piece.21
Another study applies a modified TIS framework to
the case of hydrogen fuel cell technology in Den-
mark and the US.22 The authors identify vastly differ-
ent strategies in the two cases, more climate policy
driven in Denmark and more fragmented and geared
towards experimentation in the US, but conclude
that neither has been effective to date. They also
call for more studies using a TIS-focus in the field of
low-carbon transport. Another study uses an expert
elicitation technique and finds the availability of
charging points, structural factors such as gross
domestic product and government incentives to be
likely factors for the successful uptake of EVs in
Europe.23
21 Köhler, Jonathan, Wolfgang Schade, Guillaume Leduc, Tobias Wiesenthal, Burkhard Schade, and Luis Tercero Espinoza. 2013.
“Leaving Fossil Fuels behind? An Innovation System Analysis of Low Carbon Cars.” Journal of Cleaner Production 48 (June):
176–86. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.042.
22 Andreasen, Kristian Peter, and Benjamin K. Sovacool. 2015. “Hydrogen Technological Innovation Systems in Practice: Comparing Danish
and American Approaches to Fuel Cell Development.” Journal of Cleaner Production 94 (May): 359–68. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.056.
23 Zubaryeva, Alyona, Christian Thiel, Enrico Barbone, and Arnaud Mercier. 2012. “Assessing Factors for the Identification of Potential
Lead Markets for Electrified Vehicles in Europe: Expert Opinion Elicitation.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (9):
1622–37. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.004.Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
10
3. Demographic, Environmental, and
Policy Context
California and Germany are relatively similar in geo- 63 % of all households do have access to a parking
graphic size and vehicle sales volumes, as indicated garage or dedicated parking space.24 Looking at
in Table 2 below. However, Germany has over twice owners of electric vehicles, 96 % of California EV
the population density, which has implications for owners own their own dwelling, and 91 % reside in a
electric vehicle usage patterns and market needs, single-family home. Moreover, 75% park in a garage,
such as in trucking and last-mile delivery routes. and nearly all of the remainder park in a driveway or
carport.25 While renters and condominium owners
Additionally, in California 63% of dwellings are single- can adopt electric vehicles, single-family residents
family homes, where residents may be more easily who own their own home face fewer barriers and
able to charge a plug-in vehicle. In Germany, only seem to be serving as a niche demographic for
33 % of dwellings are single-family homes, though market formation (F5). 26272829303132333435
Table 2 | Basic Comparison of California and Germany
Germany California
Population (millions) 26
81 39
Size (km2) 27
357,376 403,466
Population per km 2
227 97
Percent Single-Family Dwellings 33 %28 63 %29
Personal Automobiles (millions) 30
45.1 24.5
Light Vehicle Sales, 2015 (millions) Cars: 2.2; Light Trucks: 0.9 31
Cars: 1.2; Light Trucks: 0.932
Share of GHG Emissions from 17 %, of which34… 37 %, of which35…
Transportation33 Passenger Vehicles: 56 % Passenger Vehicles: 72 %
Freight (road): 26 % Freight (road): 20 %
Aviation: 14 % Aviation: 2 %
Other: 4 % Other: 6 %
24 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 15, Sonderheft 1, EVS 2013. Table Ü2 (dwelling type) and Ü3 (garage or parking space
access). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/Wohnen/EVS_
HausGrundbesitzWohnverhaeltnisHaushalte2152591139004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
25 Source: California Center for Sustainable Energy California PEV Owner Survey, 2012, pages 4-5. https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/
sites/default/files/docs/nav/transportation/cvrp/survey-results/California_PEV_Owner_Survey_Report.pdf
26 Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/06
27 CA Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/06 155,779.22 square miles. DE source: http://www.statistikpor-
tal.de/Statistik-Portal/de_jb01_jahrtab1.asp
28 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 15, Sonderheft 1, EVS 2013. Table Ü2 (dwelling type) https://www.destatis.de/DE/
Publikationen/Thematisch/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/Wohnen/EVS_
HausGrundbesitzWohnverhaeltnisHaushalte2152591139004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
29 Source: California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey 2009, Table ES-2. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/
CEC-200-2010-004/CEC-200-2010-004-ES.PDF
30 Sources: KBA, http://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Fahrzeuge/Bestand/bestand_node.html, and California Department of Motor
Vehicles, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/5aa16cd3-39a5-402f-9453-0d353706cc9a/official.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
31 Source: http://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Fahrzeuge/Neuzulassungen/MonatlicheNeuzulassungen/2015/201512GV1monat-
lich/201512_nzbarometer/201512_n_barometer.html?nn=1207072
32 Source: http://www.cncda.org/CMS/Pubs/Cal%20Covering%204Q%2015.pdf
33 Sources: BMVI Aktionsplan Güterverkehr und Logistik, https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/G/aktionsplan-
gueterverkehr-logistik-2015.html?linkToOverview=%23id61432, p. 38; and California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/
cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
34 Energy consumption used as a proxy for GHG emissions. Source: https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/
publications/sektorkopplungsstudie.pdf
35 Source: Based on CARB 2014 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/ghg/2000_2014/ghg_sector_
data.phpTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
11
Both regions’ new car purchasers (whether EV or IC diesel particulate matter emissions in California.39
engine) belong to relatively concentrated demographic With some of the worst air quality in the United
groups, demonstrating the emergence of initial niches States, California must take significant action to
in the market development process (F5). In Germany, meet federal ozone and NOx standards by 2023 and
60 % of new cars are purchased by commercial/fleet 2031.40 Currently, only 40 % of California’s South Coast
owners36, not by private individuals. And in California, residents live in communities that meet federal ozone
just 4 % of households are buying 28 % of new cars.37 standards; statewide, over 30 % of Californians live in
At the same time, policies that target more varied de- areas that exceed federal ozone and PM2.5 particu-
mographics are important for societal acceptance of late matter standards.41 As a result, in California air
new technologies (F7). quality is a driver for transportation electrification
that is on par with carbon reductions. The relatively
GHG emissions in the transportation sector are one equal importance of these drivers can be seen in the
of the major drivers for transportation electrification, California Air Resource Board’s recently published
but as Table 2 above shows, the context for trans- Mobile Source Strategy, which addresses transpor-
portation emissions is somewhat different in the two tation-related emissions of ozone, NOx, particulate
regions. Several factors contribute to the fact that matter, and greenhouse gases in a coordinated man-
the transportation sector is responsible for 37 % of ner.42
overall greenhouse gas emissions, compared to just
17 % in Germany. For example, California has a rela- In the interviews, air quality was brought up repeat-
tively mild climate, relatively less coal-fired power edly as a potential secondary driver in Germany for
generation including power imported from out of the transportation electrification after carbon reduc-
state, and relatively little industrial activity, relatively tions. In particular, some interviewees mentioned
less public transportation and relatively more vehicle local advocacy related to air quality as an important
miles traveled.38 Hence, it is necessary that the driver in urban niches (F7), as well as the threat of EU
transportation sector play a more central role in legal action and potentially even occasional driving
achieving California’s greenhouse gas reduction prohibitions as further incentives for EV adoption in
goals. areas regularly exceeding the limits (F4/5). For exam-
ple, the city of Stuttgart exceeded EU limits on 31
Yet in absolute terms, GHG emissions from the trans- days between January and August 2016 (35 such
portation sector in Germany are high, and achieving days are permitted annually).43 However, this seems
the country’s recently adopted 2030 sectoral target to be a local issue, as most of Germany is compliant
also will require decarbonizing the transportation with EU air quality regulations.44 Moreover, there are
sector. The need for action in Germany is particularly alternatives available to reduce local air pollution that
pressing because GHG emissions in the transporta- mostly stems from diesel fuel, such as banning respec-
tion sector are still above 1990 levels. tive cars from city centers. Accordingly, legitimacy of
action to support transportation electrification (F7)
Air quality is a key element of the environmental based on air quality arguments in Germany is also
context for transportation electrification. Mobile primarily local, and further depends on whether other
sources – both on and off-road – are responsible for options are viewed as more viable or desirable by the
approximately 80 % of NOx emissions and 90 % of public. Nevertheless, both the EU and the German
36 Source: KBA
37 Source: http://steps.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/04-26-2016-Tal-STEPS-Workshop-4_26_16-V2.pdf
38 Source on California’s electricity mix: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
39 Source: California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Strategy, p. 5, May 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/
2016mobsrc.pdf
40 Source: California PEV Collaborative, (CG1-1). American Lung Association in California, The Road to Cleaner Air, 2011.
http://www.pevcollaborative.org/sites/all/themes/pev/files/CG1-1.jpg
41 Source: California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Strategy, p. 20-21, May 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/
2016mobsrc.pdf
42 Source: California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Strategy, May 2016.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf
43 Source: http://www.stuttgart.de/feinstaubalarm/
44 Source: Air quality in Europe — 2015 report, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2015/at_download/fileTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
12
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conser- But as several interview participants noted, the
vation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) are plan- German auto industry has recently become more
ning to take action to meet air pollution limits and engaged in transportation electrification. Indeed, the
pave the way to ban diesel vehicles from city centers auto industry’s shift to supporting vehicle purchase
respectively.45 rebates, after years of resistance, along with a re-
cent announcement from most of the major German
Another relevant policy driver in Germany is a broad companies (together with Ford) of plans to invest in
industrial policy aim of technological leadership, 400 fast-charging stations in 2017, suggests that a
which was first applied to transportation electrifica- significant change in the policy context is under-
tion in the 2009 National Electromobility Develop- way.48 Seen through a TIS lens, increasing industry
ment Plan (NEDP).46 The NEDP called for a lead mar- support for policy action is a positive development
ket industrial policy approach – the creation of a and an important innovation function, because it has
domestic market that would create an early-mover increased the legitimacy of transportation electrifi-
advantage for the German auto industry globally. cation (F7). However, the degree to which industrial
Such an industrial policy strategy had been previ- policy will be domestically or internationally focused
ously pursued in the electricity sector with some remains to be seen.
success and thus at the time also promised to be a
way forward for transportation – but eventually did
not induce action.47 Moreover, interviews suggest
that many stakeholders – in particular the auto in-
dustry – felt that industrial policy aims would not be
well served through aggressive promotion of EVs,
resulting in several years of continued focus on
incumbent ICE technologies, a lack of programs to
implement the NEDP, and little legitimacy for trans-
portation electrification (F4, F7).
45 Sources: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/stickoxid-wo-luft-in-deutschland-krank-macht-a-1120859.html,
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/deutschland-umweltministerium-ermoeglicht-fahrverbote-fuer-dieselfahrzeuge-a-1126230.html
46 Source: http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/G/elektromobilitaet-nationaler-entwicklungsplan.html
47 In 2009, both wind and solar were booming and German companies ranked at top positions in the global market. Today, the solar
industry is experiencing significant international competition; industrial policies seem to have been more successful in the wind
industry: Also see: Pegels, Anna, and Wilfried Lütkenhorst. 2014. “Is Germany‘s Energy Transition a Case of Successful Green
Industrial Policy? Contrasting Wind and Solar PV.” Energy Policy 74 (November): 522–34. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.031.
48 Source: https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0266311EN/bmw-group-daimler-ag-ford-motor-company-and-
volkswagen-group-with-audi-porsche-plan-a-joint-ventureTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
13
4. Transportation Electrification
Stakeholders
Beyond the broader demographic and environmental and the auto industry expects a return on these ICE
context, the ecosystem of stakeholders specifically investments. Moreover, electric motors are relatively
involved in transportation electrification is an essen- low–tech, from a mechanical perspective, and some
tial factor in where and how markets are formed (F5). of our interviewees suggested that they therefore do
A given region’s stakeholder landscape can influence not play to the German industry’s traditional business
the direction pursued by entrepreneurs, the viability model strengths, as they offer much lower value-
of business models, and the feasibility of policy pro- added. As a result, German automakers have widely
posals. Moreover, stakeholders might also mobilize been seen as laggards in the PEV market. However,
considerable private finance, which may exceed pub- this status quo approach is beginning to undergo a
lic finance (F6) and impact what is politically feasible fundamental change. According to Germany’s Climate
(F4/6). Action Plan 2050, the domestic auto industry has
invested 15€ billion in PEV development to date.49
Broadly speaking, relevant stakeholders for transpor- Notable activities are BMW’s development of the i3
tation electrification include the government (at all model (3€ billion, 2013 estimates50) and the develop-
levels), the energy and automotive industries, the ment of a global battery supply chain by Daimler (1€
media, advocacy groups, investors, vehicle end-us- billion).51 Looking forward, Volkswagen (VW) has an-
ers, and the general public, as listed in Table 3. nounced the “TOGETHER – Strategy 2025”, which
among other goals lays out a plan for 30 new pure-
Of note are several significant differences in the two electric vehicle models and annual sales of 2-3 million
regions’ transportation electrification ecosystems. PEVs by 2025.52 Daimler has announced the EQ
The landscape in Germany is largely shaped by its portfolio, which will encompass all future bat-
highly successful auto industry, which has been tery-electric cars as well as the associated products
central to the overall economy for decades. Volkswa- and services from Mercedes-Benz.53
gen, Daimler, BMW, Bosch, and Continental are major
forces in the German transportation sector, and play Yet, perhaps in response to the limited PEV initiatives
a crucial role, not just in building cars but also in fun- from the major automakers prior to 2016, some new
damental research and venture capitalism activities players are now entering the German transport elec-
(F1/2/6). Because of its significant role in the econo- trification scene. For example, as previously mentioned,
my, actions of the auto industry also have the power Deutsche Post (the German postal service and oper-
to create a sense of legitimacy for new mobility ap- ator of the worldwide shipping company DHL) recently
proaches (F7). announced its intention to manufacture electric de-
livery vans through its subsidiary “Streetscooter”,
At the same time, the German auto industry has a citing a lack of vehicle availability from existing
long tradition and considerable comparative advan- manufacturers.
tage worldwide in manufacturing internal combustion
engines (ICEs), resulting in significant status quo In contrast to Germany’s robust traditional auto in-
inertia. For example, multi-billion dollar investments dustry, California’s only major auto manufacturer is
have been made in new ICE-based power train models, Tesla, an electric vehicle manufacturer with no history
49 Source: http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/klimaschutzplan_2050_bf.pdf (p.52)
50 Source: http://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/autoindustrie/a-899479.html
51 Source: http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/de/instance/ko/Daimler-baut-globalen-Produktionsverbund-fuer-Lithium-
Ionen-.xhtml?oid=14184860
52 Source: https://www.volkswagenag.com/presence/konzern/pdf/Group_Initiatives_Strategy_2025.pdf
53 Source: https://www.daimler.com/innovation/specials/electric-mobility/eq.htmlTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
14
Table 3 | Transportation Electrification Stakeholders Segments & Types
Segment Stakeholder Type
→→ International
→→ Federal
Government →→ State
→→ Regional
→→ Local
→→ R&D institutes
→→ Environmental advocates
→→ Ratepayers and ratepayer advocates
→→ Utilities, retailers, and grid operators:
→→ Transmission System Operators (TSOs), Distribution System Operators
Energy Industry (DSOs)
→→ Utility-owned generation
→→ Energy retailers and community choice aggregators
→→ Generators:
→→ Distributed energy resource providers, aggregators
→→ Utility-scale generators
→→ Vehicle and part manufacturers
→→ Charging infrastructure providers:
→→ Charging station (physical device, maintenance)
→→ Software
→→ Networks
→→ Dealerships
Auto Industry
→→ R&D institutes
→→ IT sector:
→→ Autonomous vehicle developers
→→ Car-sharing platform developers
→→ App and connected car software developers
→→ Environmental and health advocates
→→ RD&D funders
→→ Venture capitalists and incubators
→→ Pension and other investment funds
→→ Private investors
Investors →→ Landowners (investors in charging infrastructure and aspects of land use):
→→ Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
→→ Property management companies
→→ Large employers
→→ Developers
→→ Fleets and fleet managers
→→ Trucking and last-mile delivery companies
→→ Taxi, car-sharing and rental car companies
Vehicle Owners and Users
→→ Transit and other government vehicles
→→ Major end users such as ports and airports
→→ Private individuals who own/lease/share vehicles
→→ All residents and citizens
General Public, Media →→ Low income individuals, disadvantaged communities
→→ MediaTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
15
of ICE development, and a much smaller share of the are more focused on incorporating IT into traditional
overall economy. Moreover, Tesla’s early growth re- vehicles (such as in car-sharing), and on promoting
lied on venture capital, enabling it to pursue riskier the interests of traditional ICE manufacturers, and
investments than the German auto industry; this fi- less focused on transportation electrification (F7).
nancial and to some degree cultural difference in in-
vestment strategies is a factor that was brought up There are also significant differences between the
by several interviewees as a comparative advantage two regions’ electricity sectors and utility roles. In
for California in achieving rapid change. To the extent California, the majority of electricity consumption is
that traditional vehicle-related R&D and entrepre- served by vertically integrated utilities, monopolies
neurial activities occur in California, these sessions that are regulated by the California Public Utilities
are often conducted via the satellite offices of Ger- Commission (CPUC). These investor-owned utilities
man automakers, and are much less central to the (IOUs) supply 69 % of the electricity used in the
state’s transportation ecosystem than in Germany. state, and another 6% of electricity consumption is
served by on-site self-generation in their service
Instead, California’s transportation electrification territories.54 Of IOU customers, almost all are served
landscape is largely shaped by its world-leading by just three electric utilities.55 These utilities are
IT sector. The state is home to powerhouses like responsible for transmission and distribution system
Alphabet (Google) and Apple, significant newcomers infrastructure, distribution system operation, and
like Uber, Lyft, and Tesla, and numerous startups. some utility-owned generation. The remaining share
Additionally, as previously mentioned, California also is provided by public utilities, which are also vertically
has the world’s strongest network of venture capital- integrated in many instances.
ists and incubators. This ecosystem contributes sig-
nificantly to all seven innovation system functions: Germany, meanwhile, has a deregulated (also referred
engaging in entrepreneurial activities, developing and to as “liberalized”) power system, in which there is
sharing technical knowledge, creating cultural expec- less central planning and control, and a distribution
tations of rapid technological advancement, exploring of functions across many competitive companies at
market niches, mobilizing resources for risky new each stage in the value chain. As a result, entrepre-
ideas, and advocating for the sector’s interests. neurial activities related to vehicle-grid integration
(VGI) may be undertaken by different sets of stake-
Germany’s IT sector is much smaller in comparison. holders, and approaches may be somewhat different
Initiatives combining IT and transportation that do (F1). Additionally, California has nodal pricing, while
exist, such as car2go and DriveNow, are often led by Germany has uniform market prices across the coun-
pre-existing giants in the transportation sector, such try. Nodal pricing in general provides better incentives
as automakers BMW and Daimler, rental car compa- for efficient charging behavior, but ultimately rele-
nies Europcar and Sixt, and even Deutsche Bahn. In vant are the electricity rates customers are offered
other words, while entrepreneurial activity (F1/2) is for charging. Neither jurisdiction has time-varying
occurring, there are relatively few new entrants or electricity prices, but the potential advent of this type
VCs to support them; there is therefore not as strong of rate structure could allow EV owners to schedule
a coalition advocating exclusively for new IT-transport charging at times when wholesale electricity prices are
interests (F7), and the willingness to mobilize resources at their minimum (typically during the night) and could be
for risky approaches and niche market development a forceful feature in broadening EV adoption. According-
is lower (F5/6). Additionally, overall expectations of ly, rated design and adoption play a crucial role for VGI,
technology are shaped more by the dominant tradi- and here again there are important differences between
tional actors, perhaps resulting in more status quo California’s regulated and Germany’s deregulated sys-
expectations (F4). As a result, to the extent that tem. We address some of the differences related to
IT-transportation initiatives exist in Germany, they regulatory frameworks in Section 5.
54 Source: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. Los Angeles and Sacramento, as well as several smaller regions, are
served by publicly owned utilities, cooperatives, or public power agencies.
55 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Southern California Gas
Company is also a major stakeholder, but is a gas-only utility.Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
16
Due to its regulatory framework, California has a Yet despite their differences in industry makeup and
clearer path to mobilize resources for market forma- regulatory frameworks, certain aspects of the two
tion (F5/6) via directed utility actions in the areas of regions’ ecosystems are quite similar. Most signifi-
rate design and infrastructure, and as described later cantly, both have strong environmental advocates
in this document, has been a leader in doing so. German (important for F4 and F7) and strong R&D institutions
regulators, on the other hand, are less able to mobilize (F1/2/3). Both California and Germany also have
resources or direct market formation via command- several major transportation end-users, such as
and-control utility regulation. Instead, our interviews international ports and airports, and large commer-
revealed that German utility regulatory efforts were cial fleets, which may be viewed as niches for market
more focused on developing and providing time- and formation (F5).
location- variant grid usage fees (dynamische Netz-
entgelte), which, unlike electricity rates, are under
the control of the regulator. However, these efforts
are only in a preliminary phase of discussion (F5).
Nevertheless, if German regulators decide to consider
charging infrastructure as a part of the distribution
grid and not an independent service, it is possible
that they could intervene more directly in infrastruc-
ture investments.
Furthermore, as the largest players in the electricity
sector, all major utilities in both regions are taking
varying degrees of initiative under different regulato-
ry frameworks. In Germany, both RWE and Vattenfall
operate public charging stations in major cities, while
E.ON sells home charging stations. At the local level,
the larger of Germany’s distribution system operators
(DSOs) are involved in experiments and pilot projects.
In California, all three large electric utilities have pilots
either underway or pending approval, and all electric
utilities, both large and small, have been directed by
policymakers to submit additional applications for
programs and projects supporting widespread trans-
portation electrification.Transportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
17
5. Regulation and Policies
5.1 Regulatory Frameworks resources to support decarbonization and air quality
improvement (F1/6). For example, the low carbon fuel
In California, transportation electrification initiatives standard (LCFS), ZEV Mandate, and cap and trade
are largely led by the California Air Resources Board program generally set long term goals (F4) and re-
(CARB). The California Energy Commission (focused quire participants to either meet targets or pay for
on RD&D and forecasting) and California Public Utili- credits/offsets (F5). Moreover, purchase of credits
ties Commission (energy utility regulator) also play and offsets helps to fund entrepreneurial activities
significant roles. Other relevant agencies include the of market actors contributing towards meeting the
California State Transportation Agency, California policy targets (F1/2/5/6).
Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources
Agency, and California Department of Transportation In addition to the state agencies and goals focused
(Caltrans). on energy, transportation, and air quality, we note
that the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic
CARB is responsible for regulating air quality and air Development (GO-Biz) is also an important actor.
pollution, including NOx, SOx, particulate matter, ozone, GO-Biz regularly brings together relevant agencies to
and carbon emissions. CARB is unique in the sense share knowledge and coordinate activities (F3). The
that it combines authority and technical expertise for Governor’s Office also issued a revised ZEV Action
both air quality and climate change issues, which al- Plan in October 2016 that outlines state goals and
lows respective coordination, strategic planning and actions for each agency (F3/4/7).57 This coordination
sharing of expertise. The agency administers the and knowledge sharing is particularly important con-
state’s Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) Mandate, car- sidering the large number of agencies active in trans-
bon emissions cap and trade system, fleet emissions portation electrification initiatives in California. For
standards, low carbon fuel standard, and air quality example, the aforementioned Sustainable Freight
initiatives. It also develops key program and policy Action Plan was jointly developed by seven state
roadmaps, in particular the recently released Mobile agencies: the California State Transportation Agency,
Source Strategy for the transportation sector, which California Environmental Protection Agency, Natural
lays out a comprehensive strategy to reduce emis- Resources Agency, California Department of Trans-
sions from mobile sources to meet critical air quality portation (Caltrans), the CEC, CARB, and GO-Biz.
and climate goals over the next fifteen years. The
Mobile Source Strategy also informs other state In Germany, transportation electrification initiatives
roadmaps, including CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan are less centralized, without any primary ministry or
Update for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, roadmap to guide government efforts. Initiatives
the State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan mainly fall under the responsibility of the Federal
to meet federal air quality standards, and the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi),
multi-agency Sustainable Freight Action Plan.56 which is responsible for vehicle rebates (F5) and
technology-oriented R&D, and the Federal Ministry
CARB is particularly active in Functions 4/5/6, strong- of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI), which
ly guiding markets with long-term roadmaps, policies, is primarily focused on vehicle charging infrastruc-
and regulations (F4), implementing and administering ture (F5/6).58 Additional programs, mostly R&D and
market development programs (F5), and mobilizing pilots, are implemented by the Federal Ministry for
56 ore information available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm, https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/
M
sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.htm, http://www.casustainablefreight.org/
57 https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/2016_ZEV_Action_Plan.pdf
58 An overview of all activities can be found here: http://www.bmvi.de/DE/VerkehrUndMobilitaet/DigitalUndMobil/Elektromobilitaet/
AktivitaetenBundesregierung/aktivitaeten-bundesregierung_node.htmlTransportation Electrification Policy in California and Germany
18
the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and their limitations. For example, the state government
Nuclear Safety (BMUB) and the Federal Ministry of of Baden-Württemberg proposed the introduction of
Education and Research (BMBF). low-NOx vehicle eco-labels, with the aim to only per-
mit cars with this eco-label within Stuttgart’s city
In addition, the federal government established the limits (Blaue Plakette); however, such labeling schemes
German National Platform for Electric Mobility59 in fall under the authority of the federal government.61
2009. Its members – representatives from industry, Because the federal government (as well as other
science, politics, unions, and trade associations – are German states) opposed the measure, the proposed
tasked with investigating the economic, social and labeling scheme was shelved, and the city continues
environmental potential of transportation electrifica- to be precluded from creating any local low-NOx
tion, and with recommending actions for government vehicle regulations.62
and industry (F2/3/7). The Platform has issued a
number of reports and continues to meet regularly. In the following subsections, existing broad decar-
However, interviewee opinions differed as to the ef- bonization and air quality policies (section 5.2) and
fectiveness of this group in including the perspective more targeted transportation electrification policies
of emerging market actors, rather than just incumbents. and initiatives (section 5.3-5.5) will be reviewed in
more detail. To aid in structuring and categorizing the
In contrast to California, there are no binding road- many possible regulatory structures and actions, we
maps for transportation electrification in Germany. introduce the framework shown in Figure 3, developed
However, BMVI periodically issues a transportation by regulators at the California Public Utilities Commis-
infrastructure plan (Bundesverkehswegeplan), which sion (CPUC). The framework groups policies according
includes environmental aspects as a secondary con- to the different regulatory levers that exist to r educe
sideration. Additionally, BMUB has issued broad cli- total emissions.
mate action plans for 2020 and 2050; the 2050 plan
was adopted by the Cabinet in November 2016.60 For example, regional planning efforts may encour-
Both plans are not tied to binding programs; rather, age mode-switching that reduces the number of
they take stock of the transportation sector and miles individuals drive in personal vehicles, thereby
bring together ideas and proposals for how to ad- reducing demand for transportation services (the
vance transportation infrastructure and climate pro- first column in the chart). Meanwhile, government-
tection in the short and long term. Accordingly, many funded R&D and PEV market formation programs
of the measures called for are vague and will in turn may support the development and deployment of
require development via new programs or roadmaps. more fuel-efficient vehicles that can go more miles
per unit of in-vehicle energy consumption, impacting
Beyond the federal government, the European Com- the second column in the chart. Emissions intensity
mission (EC) and Germany’s state, regional, and lo- (the third column in the chart) refers to programs
cal governments are also engaged in transportation that lower the carbon intensity of used energy, and
electrification, though their jurisdiction and budgets provide access to lower carbon vehicle fuels (such as
are somewhat limited. Two locally driven market for- the LCFS and renewable portfolio standards). This
mation options that came up in interviews were a last column is particularly relevant because for EVs
congestion charge similar to London’s, from which to have a beneficial effect on emission reductions,
ZEVs would be exempt, and local government fleet the used electricity must be “clean”. Accordingly, in a
electrification (F5). Yet, while some interviewees policy framework, transportation electrification needs
spoke of the potential for local and regional govern- to be coupled with a suitable mix of companion poli-
ments to disrupt the status quo, others spoke to cies to reduce emissions in the power sector.63 This
59 http://nationale-plattform-elektromobilitaet.de/en
60 http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/klimaschutzplan_2050_bf.pdf
61 Source: http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.blaue-plakette-ein-kampf-auf-verlorenem-posten.00146bc2-e33f-43e6-9c57-
5c56b391b60e.html
62 Source: http://www.blaue-plakette.de/
63 For a discussion of the role of different policies see: http://www.rff.org/files/RFF-PB-16-05.pdfYou can also read
